International Development CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Bond Disaster Risk Reduction Group (DRR)

1.5 Disasters are both a cause and an outcome of poverty. All countries are exposed to natural hazards, but low income countries have less capacity to absorb and recover from disaster-inflicted economic losses than more developed and diversified countries.vii Although Least Developed Countries contain only 12% of global population, they accounted for 40% of all casualties related to natural disasters during the period 2000–2010.viii And whilst absolute financial losses are higher in developed countries, they take a deeper toll in developing countries—in South Asia, flood losses relative to GDP are approximately 15 times greater than in OECD countries.ix

1.6 Disasters hinder development from an economic perspective. The impacts of disasters can be pervasive and lasting. The 2010 floods in Pakistan caused US$9.7 billion in damage to infrastructure, and people’s farms and homes—and for Thailand’s 2011 floods the economic impact is set to be upwards of US$45 billion.x Annual disaster losses in Colombia represent roughly 1% of GDP. Ethiopia lost US$1 billion to drought annually between 1997 and 2007: set alongside the US$1.3 billion per year that the country received in international assistance, the need for drought risk reduction is abundantly clear.xi

1.7 Disasters hinder development from a social perspective. Disasters cause social upheaval and loss of social capital. They often lead to negative coping mechanisms such as taking children out of school, transactional sex, early marriage, selling of assets (often women’s assets are sold first), and gender-based violence. Malnutrition shocks caused by drought, borne primarily by women and children, can permanently impact brain development in children; one key study found that the loss of stature, schooling and potential work experience from children in Zimbabwe due to drought and conflict resulted in a loss of lifetime earnings of around 14%.xii

1.8 Disasters hinder development from an environmental perspective. The direct environmental impact of many disasters is obvious, such as the destruction of unprotected land by storm surges and floods, or desertification due to drought. Moreover, an unprepared community’s reaction to disaster often involves rapid depletion of ecosystem resources; drought-stricken communities overgrazing or deforesting their land; communities which have lost fields to flooding start cultivation on marginal land that was previously shrubland or pasture. International disaster response, such as refugee or IDP camps, also places stress on natural resources such as water, wood and other natural ecosystems.

1.9 Disasters are an equity issue, both globally and within countries. Poor women and men are the most vulnerable, with precarious livelihoods, lack of economic buffers, and homes in increasingly risky environments. This is not primarily due to lack of will, fatalism, or perverse attitudes to risk, but to inequalities in the distribution of rights, resources and power which prevent risk-sharing and severely constrain their options. For example, women and girls tend to be more vulnerable because of pre-existing inequalities. Reducing disasters is everywhere a political problem, and not just a technical problem. A key achievement of the MDGs is raising the political profile of development issues, providing an opening for people to hold their governments accountable for progress toward the goals. Integrating resilience into the post-2015 global framework will strengthen the essential political dimension of disaster reduction

2. How should the “Sustainable Development Goals” be established following Rio +20 relate to the “Development Goals” being considered by the High-Level Panel?

2.1 The Bond DRR Group supports the position of Bond Beyond 2015 UK that there should be a single unified process leading to the definition of the post-2015 framework and a single set of international development goals which put poverty eradication as the overarching focus of sustainable development. To develop the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and post-MDG goals in parallel would be short-sighted and inefficient for the following reasons:

2.1.1It would hinder linkages between the two agendas and potentially lead to competing, rather than mutually reinforcing, goals.

2.1.2It is difficult to justify the cost of two high-level political processes, and may induce policy fatigue that in turn reduces the level of ambition.

2.1.3It will endanger meaningful stakeholder participation by splitting attention and resources between the two processes.

3. The coverage of future goals: should they be for developing countries only or should progress be monitored in all countries?

3.1 The Bond DRR group believes that the framework should set out global goals, as well as contextualised national targets for both developed and developing countries. This is in order to ensure that the shared responsibility for impact and equity is included within the framework. With regard to monitoring, we believe that the framework should:

3.1.1lay out enforceable accountability mechanisms, as well as the process for accountability at a national, regional and global level. This must include national oversight and independent review mechanisms at the international level;

3.1.2include mechanisms for mutual accountability between governments and donors.;

3.1.3include mechanisms for a governmental peer review process which includes civil society;

3.1.4enable citizens in developing countries to hold their governments to account in real time for progress on commitments made;

3.1.5include monitoring mechanisms with measures to disaggregate data so that the impact on marginalised groups can be properly addressed; and

3.1.6ensure that national processes involve meaningful consultation and scrutiny by parliament and civil society.

4. The process: are the right voices being heard? What are the opportunities for and constraints to global consensus?

4.1 Global high-level forums where governments report back on activities have had a limited impact (eg UNISDR’s Global Platform on DRR) and should not be a major focus of the post-2015 framework. Whilst Millennium conferences have provided some momentum to advancing MDG delivery, it has been the monitoring of national level goals and the debates these generate at national and regional level that have achieved the most to galvanise development efforts

4.2 It is clear that the process of developing new agreements is key to its legitimacy. The post-2015 framework must be developed through participation, inclusivity and a bottom-up approach—we should not seek to emulate the process which created the MDGs

4.3 It is important that the voices of the most vulnerable are heard in the process, those who are most at risks from disasters. The Global Network for Disaster Reduction has been producing the “Views from the Front Line” reports that have given a voice to the poorest, most vulnerable people. These reports have demonstrated that little has been achieved in terms of reducing underlying risk factors and increasing disaster resilience at the local level.^xiii Similar mechanisms should be used to ensure that the right voices are heard in the process to develop the post-2015 framework

5. Targets: was the MDG “target-based” approach a success? Should it be retained? How should progress be measured?

5.1 Clear and detailed targets are crucial to build political will, accountability, analysis, measurement and effective actions. The post-MDG framework might include a topline target of reduced losses and damage from disasters, while the post-HFA agreement spells out in greater detail national commitments to reduce underlying vulnerabilities. In both cases, data needs to be:

disaggregated by gender, age, ethnicity, and ability;

local level, not merely national or regional;

produced through open and transparent data collection processes;

updated regularly in consultation with national civil society; and

used to inform planning (including setting baselines and objective monitoring), resource allocation and accountability.

5.2 Global reporting by states against post-MDG and post-HFA commitments need to make corresponding indicators compulsory. International financing from bodies like the World Bank (Global Facility for DRR) should support governments to identify overlapping and integrated indicators for them to report against in line with poverty reduction and sustainable development commitments. For example: Development plans defined at national level for poverty reduction should incorporate and report also against indicators for DRR and risk management within them. Disaggregated data used to report poverty reduction plans should include local and national level indicators for disaster vulnerability and critically should measure disaster losses. These indicators should also be reported by governments against the post-HFA process.

6. Financing global goals: are new mechanisms needed?

6.1 In terms of the global development funds that will be guided by a post-2015 framework, the UK must promote the idea that funding for disaster resilience must be predictable and commensurate with real risks, based on countries’ geographical, political, economic and social vulnerability—as identified through thorough participatory risk assessments. A clear financial commitment should thus be made within global targets, providing predictable and appropriate resources to address the structural causes of vulnerability to disasters in a given country and geographic area

7. The role of the private sector and other non-state organisations

7.1 Global public investments dwarf international aid and must be a key focus of DRR. Governments should want to avoid loss of capital investment in infrastructure and other public assets, but short-termism may reduce this; standards and benchmarks are required to incentivise reduction of avoidable harm to public infrastructure and assets. The private sector is key to leveraging greater resources and there is more scope for insurance to play a part—eg lowering premiums where DRR investments have been made.

8. Timescale: what period should the new framework cover? Was the 15-year timescale for the MDGs right?

8.1 Bond DRR Group believes that the new framework should cover a timescale that is able to respond to the urgency of the environmental crises and social challenges faced globally, whilst having sufficient longevity to transform the pathways of development onto a more sustainable footing. The Group supports the Beyond 2015 UK recommendation that whatever final period is agreed on, there are regular interim reports every two—five years.

9. The content of future goals: what would be a good set of global goals? What continuity should there be with the MDGs, and how should the unfulfilled MDGs be taken forward?

9.1 Disaster resilience must be included in the values/principles of the post 2015 framework. Some key principles likely to underpin future agreements include well-being, equity, sustainability, universality, participation—and to these must be added resilience because sustainable development will not be achieved without better understanding and reduction of risks. The principle of resilience would be strengthened by an explicitly rights-based approach. The right to protection and relief from disasters is clearly implied in international law^xiv and framing DRR in this way enables communities and individuals to call duty-bearers to account through designated institutional arrangements

9.2 Mainstreaming—DRR should be embedded in each goal. If a “Development Goal” structure is retained in the post-2015 framework, each goal should explicitly recognise the potential impact of disasters on its realisation and seek to mitigate this risk. Thus, for example if the goal of achieving primary education was retained as a goal commitment, integrating risk management into delivery of that goal would require states to:

identify the external “shocks and stresses” that might prevent universal primary education at national and local level;

address these risks as part of national risk management plans and within development plans; and

demonstrate a measurable reduction in the risks to achieving universal primary education (alongside demonstrating measurable increase in access to primary education).

9.3 Risk analysis for the post-2015 framework. The post 2015 framework itself should have its own general risk analysis, in the same way that business cases and programme proposals need to identify risks and challenges that could impede the realisation of their set goals. Undertaking a thorough risk analysis which identified natural hazards, economic, social and political risks would help to put risk analysis and risk management at the heart of the framework.

9.4 A pillar or goal on reducing the impact of disasters—with targets. The benefit of including a specific disaster resilience pillar/goal (as well as integrating it across the other goals) in the post 2015 framework is that it establishes a clear global commitment that would reinforce delivery of risk management within the development goals. In addition a stand-alone commitment on DRR could play a significant unifying role to efforts at national level, in line with the application of HFA commitments by States, irrespective of development status.

9.5 A commitment to a measurable reduction in the number of people affected by natural hazards would require resourcing of measurable action to reduce disaster risks. This would require states to:

know where the risks of natural hazards are;

know where exposed populations are (disaggregated by sex, age and ability);

take action to reduce exposure and address vulnerability to disasters;

integrate this knowledge into development plans;

report the annual levels of impacts of natural hazards on affected populations; and

and demonstrate a measurable reduction in the impact of the hazards through appropriate and inclusive resilience building.

October 2012

References

ⁱ UNISDR, WMO (2012) – UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda. Disaster Risk and Resilience, Thematic Think Piece